CAIR-SFBA Local Measure Voter Guide

ALAMEDA COUNTY

SUMMARY: Shall the Charter of the City of Berkeley be amended to provide that the council district redistricting that occurs every ten years after the federal census shall be conducted by a citizens redistricting commission that is independent of the City Council?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote on this measure would amend the City of Berkeley Charter to transfer responsibility from the City Council to a Citizens Redistricting Commission (“CRC”), who would then be responsible for redistricting duties.
A NO vote on this measure would not amend the City of Berkeley Charter – keeping the duties of redistricting to be with the City Council.
ARGUMENTS
SUPPORTERS say this measure increases political fairness and helps fight partisan gerrymandering by taking the crucial power of redistricting from the politicians who benefit from it, to an independent citizen commission. They emphasize the need to have an objective eye on such a politically powerful tool.
OPPONENTS – None filed

Measure X1 – CITY OF BERKELEY: PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING
CAIR-CA RECOMMENDATION: SUPPORT

SUMMARY: Shall a City Charter amendment and ordinance to allocate approximately $500,000 annually from the General Fund, not to exceed $2,000,000 over any four years, to provide those candidates for Mayor and Council who only accept contributions of $50 or less per donor with a matching payment of six times the amount of each contribution from Berkeley residents, up to $120,000 per participating Mayoral candidate and $40,000 per participating Council candidate, be adopted?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means you want to reward candidates who engage larger numbers of Berkeley residents and agree to a by providing matching donations to their campaigns for Mayor or City Council member.
A NO vote means you do not want these changes made.
ARGUMENTS
SUPPORTERS say Measure X1 ensures that all candidates can run for office, not just those with access to wealth or who are the best fundraisers. They say that more than half of Berkeley campaign funds come from fewer than 350 households – less than 1% of Berkeley. Measure X1 does not raise taxes. Instead, funding comes from existing city revenues equal to 0.16% of the budget.
OPPONENTS -None filed

SUMMARY: Shall Oakland’s City Charter be amended to establish: (1) a Police Commission of civilian commissioners to oversee the Police Department by reviewing and proposing changes to Department policies and procedures, requiring the Mayor to appoint any new Chief of Police from a list of candidates provided by the Commission, and having the authority to terminate the Chief of Police for cause; and (2) a Community Police Review Agency to investigate complaints of police misconduct and recommend discipline?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means you want to create a commission of civilians to oversee the Oakland Police Department.
A NO vote means that you do not want to create a civilian commission to oversee the Oakland Police Department.
ARGUMENT
SUPPORTERS say that serious police misconduct impedes effective policing and improved oversight. Effective discipline is needed to better focus police force on: community policing, responding to 911 calls, and investigating serious crimes. A strong police oversight commission will help build greater trust with the community, improve police response, and ensure constitutional policing.
OPPONENT – None Filed

MONTEREY COUNTY

SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, and other high-intensity methods to extract oil and gas (i.e. acid stimulation) locally, in Monterey County.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote on this initiative will ban the use of fracking and other high-intensity forms of oil extraction locally in the County.
A NO vote on this initiative will not ban the use of fracking or other high-intensity forms of oil extraction locally – thus leaving restrictions on fracking as ordained by the state government.
ARGUMENTS
SUPPORTERS say this local initiative will help protect Monterey County from oil companies using dangerous oil extraction techniques. Supporters argue that these intense extraction techniques – including, but not limited to fracking (hydraulic fracturing), steam injection, and acidizing – harm the environment and are not scientifically well-studied enough to be considered safe. They cite scientific reports potentially linking fracking to earthquakes, as well as possible water contamination issues.
Advocates emphasize the threat allowing fracking could cause to tourism and agriculture in Monterey county – both industries, they argue, which are far more lucrative and important to the local economy than the relatively small oil industry. (iv)
OPPONENTS say the initiative is a waste of taxpayer’s money and push back on the supporters’ claims that state regulations on fracking are too soft. They argue that these regulations – among the toughest in the nation, requiring oil companies to monitor water quality and analyze seismic impacts, among other things – are more than enough to meet current environmental standards and protect local citizens. They cite the economic impact banning fracking will have; potentially losing hundreds of jobs.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

Proposition G – POLICE OVERSIGHT (v)
CAIR-CA RECOMMENDATION: SUPPORT

SUMMARY: Shall the City amend the Charter to rename the Office of Citizen Complaints as the Department of Police Accountability (DPA); require the DPA to review the San Francisco Police Department’s use-of-force policies and its handling of claims of police misconduct; allow the DPA to audit or review any SFPD policy, procedure or practice; specify the City records that the DPA may access to perform its duties; and provide that the DPA would separately submit its budget to the Mayor?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote would:
• Rename the Office of Citizen Complaints as the Department of Police Accountability (DPA);
• Require the DPA to review the San Francisco Police Department’s use-of-force policies and its handling of claims of police misconduct;
• Allow the DPA to audit or review any SFPD policy, procedure or practice;
• Specify the City records that the DPA may access to perform its duties; and
• Provide that the DPA would separately submit its budget to the Mayor.
A NO vote would not make these changes, leaving the Office of Citizen Complaints with unchanged responsibilities and duties
ARGUMENTS
SUPPORTERS say that this proposition will bring greater accountability, transparency, and external oversight to law enforcement. President Obama’s 21st Century Policing Task Force, the Police Executives Research Forum, the Blue Ribbon Panel and the ACLU have all found that strong external oversight of police departments is essential to evaluating the operational and policy effectiveness of a police department.
It is incumbent upon officers and residents alike to ensure that our officers engage the community in a manner that is accountable and transparent to the public they serve.
OPPONENTS: No opposition filed.

Proposition H – PUBLIC ADVOCATE (vi)
CAIR-CA RECOMMENDATION: SUPPORT

SUMMARY: Shall the City amend the Charter to create the position of Public Advocate, responsible for investigating and attempting to resolve public complaints concerning City services and programs; and shall it be City policy to provide the Public Advocate with sufficient funding and a support staff of at least 25 people?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means you want to amend the Charter to create the position of Public Advocate, responsible for investigating and attempting to resolve public complaints concerning City services and programs. It would provide the Public Advocate with sufficient funding and a support staff of at least 25 people.
A NO vote means you do not want to make these changes
ARGUMENT
SUPPORTERS say that a Public Advocate would increase government accountability, reduce wasted work hours, and ensure that citizens get the service they need from city government. Major cities like New York, Portland, Seattle and Toronto already have public advocates. Last year alone, New York’s Public Advocate saved the city $163 million by investigating bad city contracts and cutting waste.
OPPONENTS say that the Mayor and eleven members of the Board of Supervisors are elected to advocate for the public. There is no need to create another citywide elected position to duplicate what other local officials are tasked to do. The Public Advocate Office will cost taxpayers up to $3.5 million a year, based on the Controller’s Office estimates.

SUMMARY: Shall the City allow a non-citizen resident of San Francisco who is of legal voting age and the parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means that you want to allow a non-citizen resident of San Francisco who is of legal voting age and the parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education.
A NO vote means you do not want these changes
ARGUMENT
SUPPORTERS say it is essential that we expand parental involvement in our schools. Greater participation is a key element in raising educational achievement, especially in low-performing schools. All parents, regardless of citizenship, will have the opportunity to become an integral part of their child’s education through the voting process. It is estimated that at least 1 out of 3 children in SF public schools has an immigrant parent. Tens of thousands of SF residents would become eligible to vote in School Board elections. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly said that citizenship is not required to vote. The California Constitution explicitly authorizes Charter cities such as SF to provide for the manner of electing school board members.
OPPONENTS say this is an unwise measure that calls for non-citizens and undocumented members to vote in San Francisco elections for the Board of Education. American citizens living abroad are not allowed to take part in foreign nations’ board of education or other elections.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

Measure E – CITY OF SAN JOSE: OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ORDINANCE
CAIR-CA RECOMMENDATION: SUPPORT

SUMMARY: Shall an ordinance be adopted amending the San Jose Municipal Code to require employers of 36 or more employees to offer additional work hours to existing qualified part-time employees before hiring new employees or contractors, unless waived through a collective bargaining agreement or a welfare to work program; and, authorize the City to enforce, and grant hardship exemptions from, the offer of work requirement?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means that you want to amend the San Jose Municipal Code to offer additional work hours to existing qualified part-time employees before hiring new employees.
A NO vote means that you do not want to make this change
ARGUMENT
SUPPORTERS say that Measure E offers part-time workers a chance to get extra hours so they can pay for rent, utilities, food and the other basic necessities. When large businesses decide they have more work, they will be called on to offer the additional hours to their existing, part-time workers. If the current employees don’t want the additional hours, their employers can offer the hours to anyone else.
Measure E was drafted to be fair to employees and businesses. Businesses decide what hours need to be worked and what skills are needed. Existing employees get an opportunity to work, small businesses are exempt, and businesses that find it impractical to follow the law can apply for a hardship exemption. (viii)
OPPONENTS say that while well-intentioned, Measure E’s inflexibility obstructs hiring and job-creation by responsible, well-intentioned employers, particularly nonprofit organizations and small businesses. An after-school program should not have to risk a lawsuit to add part-time tutors. This measure was drafted without significant input from local businesses or nonprofits. (ix)

Measure P – CITY OF SANTA CLARA: MAYOR AND COUNCIL TERM LIMITS
CAIR-CA RECOMMENDATION: SUPPORT

SUMMARY: Shall Sections 701 and 704.1 of the Santa Clara City Charter be amended to limit the Mayor and members of the City Council to no more than two full terms for each office, and to define a partial term in excess of two years as a full term?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote would serve to eliminate the ability of persons serving as Mayor or City Council
Member to serve unlimited terms as long as no more than two terms are served consecutively.
A NO vote would serve to leave existing term limitations as is.
ARGUMENT
SUPPORTERS say the City of Santa Clara has seen explosive economic and population growth, which has brought an influx of new talent and smart individuals. However, the makeup of the city council membership has not reflected this diverse and talented growth – too often the same council Members and Mayors, depriving the city of new individuals from taking a leadership role.
While the current City Charter seems like there are term limits, the reality is that Council Members can simply “reset” their limit by sitting out for 2 years or by serving as Mayor, thereby allowing them to run again. (x)
OPPONENTS: No Opposition Filed

Measure Q – CITY OF SANTA CLARA: FILLING VACANCIES IN CITY ELECTED OFFICES
CAIR-CA RECOMMENDATION: SUPPORT

SUMMARY: Shall Section 703 of the Santa Clara City Charter be amended to provide that vacancies in any elective office of the City be filled by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council and to require that persons appointed to fill vacancies occurring in the first half of a term of office shall hold office until the next general municipal election?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
A YES vote would serve to require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council to fill vacancies in any of the City’s elected offices, as well as change the time served by a person appointed or elected to fill vacancies occurring in the first half of a term.
A NO vote would serve to leave the existing provisions in the Charter for filling vacancies as is.
ARGUMENT
SUPPORTERS say, currently if one of the city’s elected officials resigns, a replacement is appointed by the city council for the rest of the term. The Charter Review Committee felt that the community should have a voice in who should lead the city, including when a seat is vacated early. This measure will ensure that any vacancy will be filled by the will of the voters at the next general election. (xi)
OPPONENTS: No opposition filed
(i) Election: 2016 Ballot Measures Page – City of Berkeley, CA. (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/Elections/Election__2016_Ballot_Measures_Page.aspx
(ii) (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://www.acgov.org/rov/elections/20161108/documents/MeasureLL.pdf
(iii) Ban Fracking – Yes on Z. (n.d.). Protect Monterey County. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://www.protectmontereycounty.org/
(iv) Ballot Initiatives. (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://montereycfb.com/index.php?page=no-on-measure-z
(v) Police Oversight | San Francisco Voter Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/police-oversight
(vi) Proposition H. (n.d.). Public Advocate | San Francisco Voter Guide. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/public-advocate
(vii) Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections | San Francisco Voter Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/non-citizen-voting-school-board-elections
(viii) Yes on Measure E: Opportunity to Work. (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://opportunitytowork.org/
(ix) Argument Against Measure E (Rep.). (2016). San Jose, CA.
(x) Argument in Favor of Measure P (Rep.). (2016). Santa Clara, CA.
(xi) Argument in Favor of Measure Q (Rep.). (2016). Santa Clara, CA.